RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Ace McWicked)
m (Protected "RationalWiki:Chicken coop": Page has reached its "pointless bickering and posturing" quota for the day. ([edit=moderator] (indefinite) [move=moderator] (indefinite)))

Revision as of 21:57, 20 September 2011


This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM). Despite the name, this tends to be serious business.

This page can be used for reporting cases of administrative abuse (abuse of sysop or Moderator abilities such as blocking, page deletion, or user rights management), general abuse (such as trolling, wandalism, and personal attacks), and conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion (such as longstanding edit wars or article content disputes).

Please try to resolve conflicts with other editors directly through discussion on their user talk page before reporting them at the chicken coop. If you do report an editor's behaviour here, please leave a message on their talk page to alert them to this, so that they have a chance to discuss their actions here.

All editors are welcome to comment on the cases raised here, and to try to reach a consensus on any action to be taken. If no consensus can be reached, and the HCM seems to be escalating moderators are expected to take some action.

Contents

Nx (yet a-fucking-gain)

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki_talk:Chicken_coop#Nx_.28yet_a-fucking-gain.29. 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Everyone

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop#Everyone. 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop#Mikalos. 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked

Ace McWicked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

  • He repeatedly vandalized my user page [1] and the header of my talk page. [2] in June and July.
    He has been cooped for this and promised not to do it again. [3] When he vandalized my user page again in July I reminded him of the coop case against him that was still on-going, and his response was this: [4]
  • He vandalized Maratrean's talk page on August 28th [5] and 27th [6] as well as his user page on the 27th [7]
    He has been cooped for this and for harassing Maratrean [8]
  • On September 3rd, he vandalized Maratrean's sig. [9] Maratrean reverted it, then one minute later Ace blocked him for 3 months. After Maratrean unblocked himself, Ace desysoped him and blocked him again (note the "cannot edit own talk page" bit in both blocks). [10] At the same time he vandalized Maratrean's user page [11] [12] [13] and talk page. [14]
    He has been warned [15] and cooped [16]
  • On September 10th he vandalized Maratrean's talk page [17] [18]. I asked him to stop [19] - as a result he vandalized my user page [20] and UHM's user page as well, after UHM undid SuspectedReplicant's vandalism on Maratrean's talk page [21] [22]
    He has been cooped for this. [23]
  • He vandalized Brxbrx's user page on September 10th [24] and his sig on September 17th [25]
  • On September 11th he added Maratrean's user page to Category:Bullshit. [26] After I reverted it he blocked me for 5 minutes with the comment "MYOB". [27]
  • He blocked Brxbrx, a non-sysop, for three months, with the ability to edit his talk page disabled, 3 times. [28]
  • Blocking a user with no contributions for 3 months [29]
    I'm including this because a similar instance of Brxbrx blocking a vandal for three months was brought up as abuse in his case.
  • Harassing RobSmith with 3 month blocks. [30]
    I'm including this because abusive "joke blocks" were brought up against Brxbrx in his case. Though Brxbrx blocked Nutty only once, not repeatedly like Ace.

Ace has abused his sysop powers by blocking a non-sysop for 3 months without even leaving the ability to edit their talk page on, and in one instance promoting an editor to enforce a block. He also has a history of vandalizing user pages. While it may be fun to do that once or twice, and some people might not mind, what he is doing is in bad faith and disruptive.

He has been cooped several times and several people have asked him to stop, but not much else came from that. I've desysopped him after his last block of Brxbrx since it was a clear abuse of blocking powers, but obviously that desysopping didn't last. He seems to think that as long as he can get away with being a dick, he'll continue being a dick. I don't think he should be desysopped and forever remain a non-sysop, but he needs to be told that there will be consequences if he doesn't stop. -- Nx / talk 08:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Now we see the purpose of the electoral fraud. Five minutes in his dishonestly-obtained position and Nx is bringing up the same shit about the same person. Chuck this bullshit in the rubbish bin where it belongs. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 08:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm disqualified to act as a mod in this case because I'm the one bringing this case to the coop. -- Nx / talk 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You missed two important factors I brought up on your "Ace McWicked Love In Hate" page, Nx. Firstly that that SHIT user has a long history of vandalism both here and at CP (some minutes before arriving here the same user vandalised CP) and that RobS has been trolling the shit out of me here. Aceace 09:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
But I deny nothing else, just those two factors should be striken. Aceace 09:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. Could you provide some diffs or whatnot? That would be good, I think, so we can see the trolling you're talking about.--ADtalkModerator 09:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Robs has been cross trolling me over two different wikis now - accusing me of being several different socks plus sending me some fairly unchristian emails. I'll post 'em sometime (if you really need the evidence - just look at his recent contribs) and we no that SHIT user is a vandal, he has been here before. But everything else I admit - I have been nothing but honest in my RW career.Aceace 09:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that's definitely fair to say!
Looking at this evidence and whatnot, I dunno... would you be willing to give up being a sysop for a period, maybe? I know that's not what Nx is calling for with this, but it seems like it would be fair.--ADtalkModerator 09:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave it to the mods. Aceace 09:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Uhh... well I guess I'll see what other folks have to say about this. I incline towards requesting like a month promotion, but others might feel differently. Thanks for being chill in any case.--ADtalkModerator 10:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Which part of "I'm including this because it was considered block abuse in this other case" is unclear? Brxbrx was admonished for blocking a vandal who actually did vandalize. You blocked someone who didn't even make a single edit because you suspected would vandalize based on their username. Maybe it was the same person who vandalized CP. Maybe they came here to brag on TWIGO:CP. Is that punishable by a 3 month block? -- Nx / talk 10:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason why it shouldn't be. Would you expect any intelligent convos to come from them? LAx ban rules are no excuse for letting stupid "her der i vandaled CP" people on here.--SmithRob (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Double Jeopardy issue

Most of these items have been brought to the coop before, so fall under Double Jeopardy and should not be considered here. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 09:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If Double Jeopardy did apply, it would only do so in the case of a previous vote (i.e. you can't keep bringing a vote based on the same evidence). But no vote has ever been taken - we've always just been pretty "eh" about it. So I don't think that's valid, exactly.--ADtalkModerator 09:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the fact that most people have seen this list several times and don't give a crap means a "meh" vote has been definitely cast. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 09:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Who is most people? --Mack Coster (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The people who said "meh" in here, here, here, etc, etc. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 10:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
What about the people who said "you should really stop being a dick now, Ace"? -- Nx / talk 10:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's not get into this, or it will turn into a Thing. Let's just all accept that this is not going to be any kind of rule (sorry Damo, but no way) but it's just something people can take into account if they want to.--ADtalkModerator 10:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Surely anything that has been brought up before on this page is not valid. Whether there was a formal vote or not does not mean that the issue was not properly considered in the RW way. We need to have some semblance of order and procedure. DamoHi 10:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
the issue was not properly considered in the RW way. We need to have some semblance of order and procedure. - err... how long have you been here. The RW way is for everyone to shout until we get bored and move on to the next HCM. Mobocracy =/= "order and procedure". Now, I guess you would say that the days of the mobocracy have gone. If so, this is no longer RW. It's another beast with the same name. Bob Soles (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fuck it. I'm sick of this drama. Let the signatures speak.

Desysop Ace for one month. Eligibilty is 70 edits in two months before this vote is posted. Two-third majority will win the vote. Vote will run a week from 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC) till 12:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC) (servertime). Goat votes are not counted. No socks voting. --ʤɱ libertarian 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Desysopping for a month is too extreme, people will vote against it, and if Ace ends up being acquitted we'll be back to square one. -- Nx / talk 12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
AD suggested it above. Brxbrx got 2 months, Ace list is about half as long. Also: "Fuck it. I'm sick of this drama." --ʤɱ libertarian 12:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
He's a big boy, and he doesn't need to be a sysop. I'll cast the first stone.--"Shut up, Brx." 12:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Damn, I wish I had gotten here sooner. I decided that if this happened again I'd start a vote on whether some sort of action should be taken, or if the community wanted to allow this (with the specific action to be decided later if the yeas won). Now my worry is that people who think the action is too severe will vote nay, which would seem to exonerate Ace and give him permission to carry on. Oh well. DickTurpis (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Two thirds majority wins? So the yeas need 2/3 and the nays need 1/3? We didn't require anything like that for a 2 year ban on Marcus, why for a 1 month desysopship? DickTurpis (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A two-third majority means that the community is able to actually enforce the decision (as Blue outlined in her Essay:Voting). It's a "lets be safe" thing. --ʤɱ constructivist 13:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably we should include a certain level of participation as well. If only five people are still interested enough to vote would that still count? --BobSpring is sprung! 13:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No

There is no reason to call this vote. We need less of this kind of show trial; I don't care what happened with Brxbrx. We can't simply call votes in place of discussion, especially votes with arbitrary rules. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 16:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is this vote premature? We've only been discussing Ace's actions for a month or so. Do we need another month? The main reason this hasn't been resolved is because people complain and argue but no one ever gives an unambiguous call for action. So what has to be done before RationalWiki officially condones harassment? At least UHM's vote would have established whether Ace's actions are acceptable behavior here. I, for one, would like to know. And since when are mods the only ones allowed to call for votes? I'm pretty sure at least some mods would disagree with that analysis. I've done so pretty recently and didn't catch any flak for it. But if it's up to a mod to call a vote, can some mod call a goddamn vote. We've examined and discussed this enough. Is Ace's recent behavior condoned? Yes or no? DickTurpis (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I never said that I believed only moderators could call for a vote, simply that UHM should not have called this one under the circumstances. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. So who is allowed to call a vote and under what circumstances? DickTurpis (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are no rules about it. I think we should only begin a vote after a good amount of time and significant number of people have voiced their opinion, not after just a few hours and one or two people. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
It's been like a month. DickTurpis (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
But not since this particular case was opened. You have a point, though; this isn't the first time Ace has been Cooped for these or similar offenses. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is this vote will turn into a popularity contest. It's ok if Ace does it because he is the cool guy and Maratrean is the weird crank who annoys everybody and Brxbrx is like CUR except for some reason worse. No way is this vote getting 2/3 yeas -- Nx / talk 17:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In other words, "we can't call a vote because we know we can't win it". –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 17:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that Nx is correct that 2/3 will never get met and recommend that Ace demand this be brought to a vote so that he can be acquitted. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
So, the community standards aren't worth shit. Nice to know. -- Nx / talk 18:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Read about Jury nullification. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 18:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I see no reason for a 2/3 majority to be needed. We didn't need that for MC, and this is a much more minor case. But if a vote is going to be a pep rally for Ace then so be it. At least we get a result, and we know that harassment is condoned on this wiki in at least some cases. Someone else will probably have to test the limits of this. I don't care so much about punishment or anything, I just want an up or down vote on whether we, as a site, really have no problems with what Ace has been doing. If not, alright. But I've learned not to read lack of action against something as support for it. DickTurpis (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
But that's exactly the reason why it's important not to push a vote without considering where people actually stand on this. "Not condoning harassment" is not the same thing as desysopping someone for a month, and then there's the completely unnecessary two-thirds-majority requirement. I definitely do not condone vandalizing Maratrean's (or anybody else's) user page, that's a silly and counterproductive way to deal with someone who's a minor annoyance. But I don't see myself voting Yea under those terms, and would be surprised if two thirds of the community chose that option. If somebody had proposed a vote on something like voicing community disapproval of those antics, that would've had more chance of passing. Sure, it would've been as toothless as your average UN resolution and probably not more likely to have an actual effect either. Still beats a vote that is destined to fail and can then justifiably be interpreted as a total acquittal, though. And no matter where you stand on this issue, it's simply stupid to allow a random, totally uninvolved user who unilaterally decides to push a vote to set the terms. Röstigraben (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In this I basically agree with you. I would prefer an up or down vote on Ace's actions and whether they are considered not a problem. If the community were to agree that they aren't a big deal, we have our answer and nothing more is done. If the vote goes the other way, then we can decide on what, if anything, is to be done. That being said, a month without sysopship is basically a slap on the wrist. Other than not being able to take part in block wars, what would he really be missing? DickTurpis (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice false dichotomy, dear leader Nx. People can vote however they want. What you don't seem to get is that when it come to your rigid approach to implementing your rules ought is a lot different than can. Voters are entitled to exercise their own judgment even if you don't. And even if you think they're wrong. Dick, I hope you're not using the MC railroad as a benchmark for fairness. You aren't doing that, right? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Not holding up the MC issue as a model of fairness, but it does sort of set a precedent. In any case, I'm referring more to the first case of the 1 month ban, rather than the more heavy-handed follow-up. I don't really have any issues with how the former was handled. DickTurpis (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
My rules? Lol. -- Nx / talk 18:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, We've got very few rules but we're serious about blocking fairly. Yeah right. Nice double standard. -- Nx / talk 18:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This is why the moderators should handle this without putting the community to the polls. There are rules and Ace broke them. He is unrepentant. He must face the consequences.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not what moderators are for. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 18:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the punishment for vandalism is the vandal bin and there is nothing about abuse of blocking privedges. That and Community Standards refers to bureaucracts still. Aren't we on new ground? steriletalk 18:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Blocking should only be used on spambots and vandals. Sysops should limit most blocks to an hour or two in case of vandalism. Blocks longer than this should be discussed first before implementing." -- Nx / talk 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Sterile, fuck off. Nobody here is interesting in looking at what the "rules" actually are 4 months after the lynching of Human. Get off your high horse you simpleton. This is about Nx pounding the table about his RULES!!!! But, eh, Nx, it isn't about me. You yourself said there wouldn't be a 2/3 vote. That's your whole answer. Lol consequences, you little rascal. Oh wait. Hypocritical authoritarian nonsense from a dull assclown. It may very well be that you played possum seconds before you were about to lose your rights to a unanimous vote because nobody but your 2 buddies likes you and you saw the writing on the wall. Maybe you know people think you're a herpetic waste of skin. I know it's not because you thought it was because you did anything wrong. Anyway, I'm not responsible for how people vote. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
What the fuck are you rambling on about? -- Nx / talk 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You being an authoritarian cunt and Brxbrx being a hypocrite. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a very sparse discussion I initiated on the CS talk page about the issue of the bureaucrat language, feel free to join in. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. And besides, the moderators were elected. Buyer beware, or something like that.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Well you're wrong. There's a clear job description for moderators and elections were held on the basis of that description. Adding extra duties after the vote is not on. Are you suggesting that should happen? If so, we must have another full vote for all moderators. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 19:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
We may very well be reaching the point where none of us knows what anyone else is on about. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably. Time to move on. Can we just get and up or down vote on whether Ace has done anything wrong? We've discussed this more than enough. I don't care if the vote is binding. I just want to know where people stand. DickTurpis (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. A vote asking "Is Ace's behavior against the spirit of the standards?" Not specifying a penalty. Yea or nay. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Though "the spirit of the standards" sounds a bit wishy-washy, I think this is the way to go. DickTurpis (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If we get an overwhelming majority saying this whole pattern of behavior is against the spirit of RW:CS, we can move forward with a proposed sentence. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You're the mod. Word is this is your bailiwick. Set it up. DickTurpis (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Fuck the vote. Moderate. If I were you, I'd desysop him and tell him to knock it off. It's not like being a sysop is that big of a deal.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of TL/DR here, so can someone tell me in short sentences why this is any different from any other case brought to the Coop? Is there a reason to involve the mods when a procedure that we've been through before was already underway? B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 20:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there was no moderation involved. I closed the vote because I thought it was premature and unwise, not because I was trying to fulfill any moderator prerogatives. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 20:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Vote


Let us hear some shit falling from the horses mouth

All this talk from assholes like Brxbrx going on and on how a vote in favour of Ace would only empower me/condone my behavior is complete and utter garbage. Even if I wasn't punished and received a hand-job for all my good work I wouldn't consider my actions to be condoned. Just saying...I know what's what. Aceace 20:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Still, what happens if/when you keep doing stuff like this? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 20:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
That's something you'll have to figure out yourself if/when I keep doing it. I can't help you there. Aceace 20:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If the vote goes in your favor, it sets a precedent allowing more of your behavior. And I'm not talking about dick jokes, but harassment, vandalism, and abusive and unfair blocking. I usually like jokes, but not bullying. Also, the 2/3 majority is just an arbitrary number put up by UHM. I think a simple majority would be fine.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
We will probably have to have votes to end this matter, but the moderators will have to set their terms; that is what the office of moderator was created for. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
it sets a precedent allowing more of your behavior no, it doesn't. You did't read what I wrote. Regardless of the outcome, I am aware of what my actions are and neither a yay nor nay vote will change that. The reason being this is a fucking website and I don't take it seriously. I have a real life to worry about. Aceace 21:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Great. Then you won't care about being desysopped and you won't care to vandalize, block, etc.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, so anyway, I was kinda hoping someone else would pop in and be like, "Yeah, a month sounds reasonable." And so they would agree and I would agree and Ace would agree and that would be that. The amount of hate I have for UHM is a lot (not really but yeah really).

So now I'm again thinking that it should be a month. And I think after that month (or before it, I guess? If there's villainy somehow) then we'd have a vote on a longer period of promotion of six months. Because this rabble-rabbling isn't really helping anything, but it is providing an excuse for a couple of people who are already worked-up to get back into it.--ADtalkModerator 21:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey AD - I left it your hands remember. But don't listen to brx - the guy is a tool. Aceace 21:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay well I'm just gonna do this. I guess that vote thingey up there is gonna be a moral vote or something.--ADtalkModerator 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Censure vote

Are the specific actions of Ace McWicked as documented above against the spirit of our standards? Simple censure vote, no consequences or penalties implied. Will last at least two days. Accounts must be one month old to vote (we really have to sort out that voting standard...) Picon small.pngAcer Blue 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes

  1. --"Shut up, Brx." 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Mack Coster (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No

  1. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to cast a real vote in this because I feel like it implies a moral judgment against Ace when all I really want is for these sorts of votes and things to stop and him not to be a butthead and sorry for the long section title it started off small but then it just kind of got away from me

  1. --ADtalkModerator 21:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. Aceace 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. --DamoHi 21:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. --B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 21:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Let the signatures speak redux

This discussion was moved to Forum:Drama_dump#Let_the_signatures_speak_redux. 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked

For vandalizing my talk page right after being desysopped, thus showing he has absolutely no interest in following the site's rules, respecting the community, and cooperating with other users. Block him for a week.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly.--ADtalkModerator 21:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Aceshouse.jpg
This means you Brx
{ec}Did he not break the rules? Did he not act in bad faith? Did he not commit the same offense he has been on trial for? I'm getting tired of his shit.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Then why don't you fuck off? Aceace 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support